33% of French favour abandoning capitalism, or a disgrace?

[Die Neue Zeit]

http://www.france24.com/en/20110126-33%25-of-French-favour-abandoning-capitalism-la-croix-poll-melenchon-hezbollah


FRENCH PAPERS, Wed., 26/1/2011: Catholic paper ‘La Croix’ along with ‘Ifop’ (The French Institute of Public Opinion) reveal how capitalism is viewed around the world. While a third of French people think it should be scrapped, just 3% of Chinese do.

The disgrace here is the lack of political participation. Both the Nouveau Parti Anticapitaliste and the Parti de Gauche have less than 10,000 members each! :cursing:

A German socialist once said:

When that [universal suffrage] comes, you can depend upon it, there will be at your side men who understand your position and are devoted to your cause - men, armed with the shining sword of science, who know how to defend your interests. And then you, the unpropertied classes, will only have yourselves and your bad voting to blame if the representatives of your cause remain in a minority.

While this definitely sounds paternalistic, the low membership figures and tendency towards 1968-style spontaneism are alarming, not even matching Die Linke's membership tally, and both French "parties" aren't even genuine party-movements in terms of mass alternative culture (cultural societies, sports clubs, funeral homes, food banks, consulting services, etc.)!

"You can depend on party citizenship, there will be at your side processes aligned with your political position and devoted to your long-term class program, processes armed with the shining sword of political and social science, and processes that can organize your interests. And then you, the workers, will only have yourselves and your apathetic electoral consumptionism to blame if you remain unorganized."

[piet11111]

You consider it bad that very few are involved with such party's as the NPA ?

I am very pleased that few are fooled into thinking that such party's are out to protect and advance their interests.
This to me means that people are rightfully abandoning Bourgeois democracy and are heading to the right conclusion that voting wont change shit that they can only do it themselves.

[Dimentio]

You consider it bad that very few are involved with such party's as the NPA ?

I am very pleased that few are fooled into thinking that such party's are out to protect and advance their interests.
This to me means that people are rightfully abandoning Bourgeois democracy and are heading to the right conclusion that voting wont change shit that they can only do it themselves.

Or they smoke pot, read about how Britney forgot her panties or playing World of Warcraft?

[piet11111]

Or they smoke pot, read about how Britney forgot her panties or playing World of Warcraft?

While its just as productive as working in the NPA or Die linke those activity's do sound like a lot more fun (except the Britney thing)

[Dimentio]

Sadly, at least in this country, people are extremely disassociated. Our Prime Minister would be able to build concentration camps for "undesirables" in the northern part of country, and most people would shrug their shoulders and say "but that is better than the environmental Taleban in government".

Recently read an article about a female reporter who saw an incident between a beggar-woman and a business-woman, where the business-woman screamed "WHY DON'T YOU JUST GET A JOB LIKE EVERYONE ELSE!"

Most people who passed by stopped, then they continued. No one said anything.

[Delenda Carthago]

For both countries,my best hopes are the anarchosyndicalists.CNT-f and FAU.Noone else has convinsed me yet.

[Proukunin]

is this a growing statistic say from 5 years ago or has it declined?

I was just wondering because even if it has grown one percent I dont think that is disgrace.

[NewSocialist]

While a third of French people think it should be scrapped, just 3% of Chinese do."Lies, damned lies, and statistics." It all depends on exactly *who* they interviewed in China, doesn't it? They should ask the Chinese working-class just how much they're loving capitalism -
"Inside China"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mS3all4canw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PM5PXiN8Ur8&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7QfAJ4YAGOY&feature=related

Chinese working conditions and labor camps
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y2TLl6Nj6Oo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zqsY9eB1HD4&feature=related

[Die Neue Zeit]

You consider it bad that very few are involved with such party's as the NPA ?

I am very pleased that few are fooled into thinking that such party's are out to protect and advance their interests.
This to me means that people are rightfully abandoning Bourgeois democracy and are heading to the right conclusion that voting wont change shit that they can only do it themselves.

Yeah, because abstention and pining for a 1968 has worked out, hasn't it? :glare:

[Widerstand]

For both countries,my best hopes are the anarchosyndicalists.CNT-f and FAU.Noone else has convinsed me yet.

FAU seems very impotent/non-existent. Maybe that looks different when we consider immediate work-place situations and union work, but on the grander scale I wouldn't bet my money on them.

My hope is all with the various grassroots worker groups and networks and the Autonomen and unorganized Anarchists.

Maybe when the crisis and austerity intensify again the unionized workers start being more relevant. Maybe the students, too. So far both are rather sad.

That being sad, am I imagining things or are DNZ's theses getting more exotic every post?

[Paulappaul]

Yeah, because abstention and pining for a 1968 has worked out, hasn't it? :glare:

May 68 proved the opposite. But I don't want to make this into any sort of Dichotomy.

[Die Neue Zeit]

What's wrong with puckering up enough money for humble voting and non-voting membership dues? What's wrong with carrying out united action on the basis of permanent organization?

[zimmerwald1915]

What's wrong with puckering up enough money for humble voting and non-voting membership dues? What's wrong with carrying out united action on the basis of permanent organization?
Nothing. What's right about supporting a capitalist party?

[Paulappaul]

What's wrong with puckering up enough money for humble voting and non-voting membership dues? What's wrong with carrying out united action on the basis of permanent organization?

I am guessing this is a "what's wrong with the vote" question? Simply that we know it doesn't accomplish anything, we know that the utilization of the state isn't our goal, we know elections are quite disenfranchised, we know that entering government leads to internal party problems/bureaucracy, we know when you lose elections, the proletariat goes home weak and depressed, etc. etc. etc. Plus we can go into all sorts of Marxist criticisms of the state, but that's dull, long and boring.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Not at all, comrade. Even if the NPA and Parti de Gauche were non-electoral parties, there should be more members. This would be all the more if they've got alternative culture like the SPD and especially the USPD.

Instead, apathetic electoral consumptionism (i.e., unwillingness to pucker up dues) is the norm.

[Mather]

Yeah, because abstention and pining for a 1968 has worked out, hasn't it?

Since when did voting ever work out well?

Do you really believe that capitalism could ever be abolished and the rule of the bourgeoisie overturned by voting and electoralism? There is not one example throughout history that supports this but there are plenty of examples of where electoralism has proven, time and time again, that is diverts the working class from organising and it's task in revolution. Everytime the working class movement engages in electoralism, it comes out more divided, more weaker, more subservient and disorientated.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Again, I wasn't posting about voting, abstentionism, spoilage campaigns, etc.

I was posting about the bigger problem (knock, knock) of workers refusing political organization.

[Mather]

FAU seems very impotent/non-existent. Maybe that looks different when we consider immediate work-place situations and union work, but on the grander scale I wouldn't bet my money on them.

My hope is all with the various grassroots worker groups and networks and the Autonomen and unorganized Anarchists.

Can you elaborate as to what you mean by this?


Maybe when the crisis and austerity intensify again the unionized workers start being more relevant. Maybe the students, too. So far both are rather sad.

As bad as the situation may be with the level of class struggle and the lack of working class organisation in advancing the class struggle, without or until the working class becomes involved, nothing much will happen. Without the working class, no revolution.

Saying that, the global economic crisis and the waves of austerity will push the working class to take it's leading role in the struggle against capitalism. The task now is for working class organisation, not vanguardist partyism or social democratic/left electoralism but an organisation built by the working class and run by the working class, armed with a materialist theoretical approach and a firm programme that can finally allow the working class to fulfil it's historic mission in overturning the rule of capital and defending itself from counter-revolution.

[Mather]

Again, I wasn't posting about voting, abstentionism, spoilage campaigns, etc.

I was posting about the bigger problem (knock, knock) of workers refusing political organization.

I'm sorry but you did not make much of an effort to put that differentiation across in your other posts.

I agree about working class organisation, it's essential and without it, revolution is impossible. No one, including piet11111 made any points about the working class not needing to organise, just that parties like the NPA are not the organisations the working class needs, given their electoralism and reformism.

[Paulappaul]

I was posting about the bigger problem (knock, knock) of workers refusing political organization. Cause such Political Organisations presented to them currently, present the antithesis of their historical experience. French Workers have been historically, the most revolutionary, the most self-sufficient and the most predictable in their outcomes. With exception to the Paris Commune, the French, made on the workers' own initiative, the struggle has usually meet suppression or meet with reform.


Do you really believe that capitalism could ever be abolished and the rule of the bourgeoisie overturned by voting and electoralism? There is not one example throughout history that supports this but there are plenty of examples of where electoralism has proven, time and time again, that is diverts the working class from organising and it's task in revolution. Everytime the working class movement engages in electoralism, it comes out more divided, more weaker, more subservient and disorientated.

well said comrade.

[piet11111]

The problem with the NPA or Die linke is that they are lightningrod party's that soak up militant leftists and put them to work on meaningless tasks until they burn out.

There is a need for a genuine working-class organization that does offer a socialist program and leadership to the people and my perception is that the people are waiting for that and understand that NPA or die linke are the same old shit in a red-ish wrapper.

[Die Neue Zeit]

piet11111, you're confusing the NPA with the Parti de Gauche. I was utterly shocked that even the Parti de Gauche, for a left-reformist formation, has less than 10,000 members, compared to Die Linke's 76000-77,000.

[Savage]

I agree with Die Neue Zeit. As Paulappaul said, the French proletariat has indeed proven to be very revolutionary, but even in cases such as May 68 the largest flaw in the struggle was the lack of ideological centrality; it seemed the french proletariat had the perfect chance to seize the means of production and exercise it's control, the outcome was truly tragic. It looks like the conditions in France are not far off what they were in the late 60's, it would be terrible for the workers to be afflicted in the same way they were back then.

[StalinFanboy]

How cool would it be if people just like... stopped going to work. Just done. No more.

[Mather]

I agree with Die Neue Zeit. As Paulappaul said, the French proletariat has indeed proven to be very revolutionary, but even in cases such as May 68 the largest flaw in the struggle was the lack of ideological centrality; it seemed the french proletariat had the perfect chance to seize the means of production and exercise it's control, the outcome was truly tragic. It looks like the conditions in France are not far off what they were in the late 60's, it would be terrible for the workers to be afflicted in the same way they were back then.

Whilst the events of May 1968 was the closet the French working class came to revolution since the Paris Commune of 1871, I agree that many mistakes were made and decisions made that turned out to be the wrong ones.

However, the failures and mistakes of May 1968 in no way validates electoralism or reformism, given that they have an even longer list of failures and mistakes.

[Mather]

You're confusing the NPA with the Parti de Gauche.

Who are you replying to here?


I was utterly shocked that even the Parti de Gauche, for a left-reformist formation, has less than 10,000 members, compared to Die Linke's 76000-77,000.

Would you not agree that both parties are left-reformist formations?

[Savage]

Whilst the events of May 1968 was the closet the French working class came to revolution since the Paris Commune of 1871, I agree that many mistakes were made and decisions made that turned out to be the wrong ones.

However, the failures and mistakes of May 1968 in no way validates electoralism or reformism, given that they have an even longer list of failures and mistakes.
I'm not talking about participation in bourgeois politics. After the french working class had paralyzed the state, they seemed at odds at what to do, had there been platforms (prior to and during the struggle) advocating workers control, then a proletarian revolution would have been not only possible but very likely in 1968.

[Mather]

I'm not talking about participation in bourgeois politics. After the french working class had paralyzed the state, they seemed at odds at what to do, had there been platforms (prior to and during the struggle) advocating workers control, then a proletarian revolution would have been not only possible but very likely in 1968.

I'm in total agreement with you on this. I do see the need for the working class to have their own mass organisation (that is democratic and accountable to the working class) and armed with a degree of theory and a programme that can enable the working class to fulfil it's revolutionary task.

Had this been the case in 1968, then the world cold have been a very different place. I was merely making the point that the failures and mistakes of the past should not disillusion us into reformism and electoralism.

[Widerstand]

You're confusing the NPA with the Parti de Gauche. I was utterly shocked that even the Parti de Gauche, for a left-reformist formation, has less than 10,000 members, compared to Die Linke's 76000-77,000.

I'm pretty happy that parties like Die Linke don't exist as annoying everywhere.

[Dimentio]

May 68 proved the opposite. But I don't want to make this into any sort of Dichotomy.

And May 1969, 1970, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1974, 1975, 1976, 1977, 1978, 1979, 1980, 1981, 1982, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1986...

[Die Neue Zeit]

However, the failures and mistakes of May 1968 in no way validates electoralism or reformism, given that they have an even longer list of failures and mistakes.

With regards to less politically advanced left-leaning workers among the 33% but who are too much into electoralism and parliamentarism, I do think even the original quote I cited in the first post is accurate. One person's "substitutionism" is another person's "representation."


Who are you replying to here?

piet11111.


Would you not agree that both parties are left-reformist formations?

Both the NPA and the Parti de Gauche are electoralist formations, but it doesn't mean both are left-reformist formations.


I'm not talking about participation in bourgeois politics. After the french working class had paralyzed the state, they seemed at odds at what to do, had there been platforms (prior to and during the struggle) advocating workers control, then a proletarian revolution would have been not only possible but very likely in 1968.

Per my citation of the SPD and especially USPD, even platforms advocating workers control are insufficient.


I'm pretty happy that parties like Die Linke don't exist as annoying everywhere.

Gotta disagree.

[Paulappaul]

And May 1969, 1970, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1974, 1975, 1976, 1977, 1978, 1979, 1980, 1981, 1982, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1986...

Oh no, I have a Calender!


I agree with Die Neue Zeit. As Paulappaul said, the French proletariat has indeed proven to be very revolutionary, but even in cases such as May 68 the largest flaw in the struggle was the lack of ideological centrality; it seemed the french proletariat had the perfect chance to seize the means of production and exercise it's control, the outcome was truly tragic. It looks like the conditions in France are not far off what they were in the late 60's, it would be terrible for the workers to be afflicted in the same way they were back then.

Well said comrade.

[piet11111]

I am not familiar with the Parti de Gauche is it meaningfully different from the NPA ?

[Die Neue Zeit]

Yes it is:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left_Party_(France)

Since the PCF is on the decline, the left-reformist Left Party seeks to occupy the vacuum left behind by the PCF, and is the French equivalent of Die Linke. If you note my threads in the French forum, Jean-Luc Melenchon and Oskar Lafontaine are personal buddies, too.

[Delenda Carthago]

FAU seems very impotent/non-existent. Maybe that looks different when we consider immediate work-place situations and union work, but on the grander scale I wouldn't bet my money on them.

My hope is all with the various grassroots worker groups and networks and the Autonomen and unorganized Anarchists.

Maybe when the crisis and austerity intensify again the unionized workers start being more relevant. Maybe the students, too. So far both are rather sad.

That being sad, am I imagining things or are DNZ's theses getting more exotic every post?
FAU is a serious organisation.I have read their positions and their struggles and I think workers,specially anarchists,should get organised more in them.I dont know about the networks you are talking about,can you give some info?

[Widerstand]

FAU is a serious organisation.I have read their positions and their struggles and I think workers,specially anarchists,should get organised more in them.I dont know about the networks you are talking about,can you give some info?

As I said, the FAU activity seems to be confined to work place struggles and "classical" union issues. It feels that their activity lacks the broader perspective and is confined to just fighting for better labor contracts. I don't find them to be a very appealing political organization, though I'd join them rather than any of the other German unions, that's for sure.

What I have most faith in are Anti-Gentrification networks, I'm mostly thinking of the Hamburg Network Recht Auf Stadt, in which plenty of local working class initiatives gathered, but also various squat projects and leftist groups (the FAU supports it, but isn't much involved with it). Similar networks exist in Berlin, and since recently in Freiburg (and I'm sure in other cities that I don't know about, too).

There are more loose networks all over Germany, for example on a nationwide scale between the various Antifa groups, and on a local scale between the various Autonomous affinity groups. The former are pretty okay for organizing Antifa activity, but don't seem to posses much revolutionary potential. The latter range from being somewhat okay coordinative organs to being just plain awful or de facto not existing.

Anarchist / Anti-Statist organization in Germany is pretty horrible. Autonomen organization is even worse (though the existence of AVVs in a couple of cities is at least a step in getting over that).

[Delenda Carthago]

As I said, the FAU activity seems to be confined to work place struggles and "classical" union issues. It feels that their activity lacks the broader perspective and is confined to just fighting for better labor contracts. I don't find them to be a very appealing political organization, though I'd join them rather than any of the other German unions, that's for sure.

What I have most faith in are Anti-Gentrification networks, I'm mostly thinking of the Hamburg Network Recht Auf Stadt, in which plenty of local working class initiatives gathered, but also various squat projects and leftist groups (the FAU supports it, but isn't much involved with it). Similar networks exist in Berlin, and since recently in Freiburg (and I'm sure in other cities that I don't know about, too).

There are more loose networks all over Germany, for example on a nationwide scale between the various Antifa groups, and on a local scale between the various Autonomous affinity groups. The former are pretty okay for organizing Antifa activity, but don't seem to posses much revolutionary potential. The latter range from being somewhat okay coordinative organs to being just plain awful or de facto not existing.

Anarchist / Anti-Statist organization in Germany is pretty horrible. Autonomen organization is even worse (though the existence of AVVs in a couple of cities is at least a step in getting over that).
Well, FAU is anarchosyndicalist, which means an economic organisation,not a political one.And I dont think that screaming "revolution" with 15 other people is more revolutionary than organising the working class anwers in an everyday life.

Are there any stalinist groups in Germany?

[Widerstand]

Well, FAU is anarchosyndicalist, which means an economic organisation,not a political one.

Exactly. I don't like that kind of reductionism to workplace issues, which is a main issue I have with anarcho-syndicalism at large. I guess if you don't think this reductionism is a problem or even consider it necessary, the view you'll have of the FAU is bound to be drastically different from mine.



And I dont think that screaming "revolution" with 15 other people is more revolutionary than organising the working class anwers in an everyday life.

But that's my issue, it's not about everyday life, it's confined to the work place. I wouldn't know of any FAU actions or campaigns concerning sexism, or gentrification (other than having banners at the large demos), or free public transport, or migrant rights, or repression (prisons and such), or racism, etc.



Are there any stalinist groups in Germany?

MLPD, SDAJ, KI, probably some more. The MLPD has 4000 members but makes really watered down politics mostly confined to electoral campaigns and newspapers. SDAJ and KI are really small.

[piet11111]

Left reformist ?

I might have been to generous.

[Hoipolloi Cassidy]

Die Neue Zeit, you are perhaps aware that:

1) Membership in the NPA is dues-paying. This keeps membership highly committed, really a cadre, and one that's extremely active in organizing in the factories and the banlieues. The actual popular support for the NPA is much higher, especially since they've been the ONLY party to recruit among "cultural minorities."

2) The figure of 10,000 may well be a high, and in fact party membership has been seriously weakened by outside attacks, notably the sad affair where the section in the Vaucluse (near Avignon) dared to place on the ballot a woman of Maghreb descent who wore a headscarf. Unfortunately this split the party, and the comrade herself has now formed a separate group.

3) Olivier Besancenot, the articulate (and cute!) spokesperson for the NPA, is a protege of Alain Krivine (extremely articulate but not so cute), who is very much out of the Trotskyite tradition of '68. Many argue that the NPA is Trotskyite without the name. At the very least the NPA has never gone for electoral politics alone. The two problems, as I see it, are that 1) there's a deep cleft in the French left between anti-capitalism and anti-globalism, and 2) there's a strong Proudhonian trait in the French middle- and working class that the "Marxist" left has not been able or willing to accomodate. The day the junction is made between those three will be the day the street comes alive.

Cordially,:thumbup1:

[Enragé]

Again, I wasn't posting about voting, abstentionism, spoilage campaigns, etc.

I was posting about the bigger problem (knock, knock) of workers refusing political organization.

Instead of whining about 'workers refusing political organization' what you should be looking into is why today's political organizations dont attract workers.

Maybe because they've proved utterly ineffectual? Maybe because their culture is utterly stupifying? Maybe because it makes people even more alienated instead of being a tool in the workers' hands to combat their alienation?

Workers, and people in general, take what is useful and drop the rest. The only time people dont is when they're fooled by ideology that a non-useful thing is in fact useful, or when through despair they see no other way of doing 'something about the shit in the world'. The first is in the long run untenable (you can only fool yourself for so long), the second leads you to a burn-out.

This is the key, and extremely perverse, problem: in what goes for 'political organisation', the organisation is not the tool of the members, but the members the tool of the Organisation.


I agree with Die Neue Zeit. As Paulappaul said, the French proletariat has indeed proven to be very revolutionary, but even in cases such as May 68 the largest flaw in the struggle was the lack of ideological centrality; it seemed the french proletariat had the perfect chance to seize the means of production and exercise it's control, the outcome was truly tragic. It looks like the conditions in France are not far off what they were in the late 60's, it would be terrible for the workers to be afflicted in the same way they were back then.


Wasnt it, in fact, the continuous infighting amongst the various left sects from the trots to the situationists to the maoists, combined with a hegemony of the PC, who all tried to impose their 'ideological centrality' which did most to undermine may '68?

Im not saying you dont need co-ordination, organisation, what I am saying is that the last thing lacking was ideology. There was enough of it, and all protagonists had corpses in their mouths (including the ones accusing others of having corpses in their mouths).

What is (and was) in need of being put forward, are PRACTICAL points, of what to do, and above all of HOW to do. Not phrase-mongering.

[Savage]

Wasnt it, in fact, the continuous infighting amongst the various left sects from the trots to the situationists to the maoists, combined with a hegemony of the PC, who all tried to impose their 'ideological centrality' which did most to undermine may '68?

Im not saying you dont need co-ordination, organisation, what I am saying is that the last thing lacking was ideology. There was enough of it, and all protagonists had corpses in their mouths (including the ones accusing others of having corpses in their mouths).

What is (and was) in need of being put forward, are PRACTICAL points, of what to do, and above all of HOW to do. Not phrase-mongering.

And arguably, these 'left sects' were in fact not leftist at all because their interest were separate to that of the proletariat. I wasn't talking about the ideological centrality of some bourgeois 'socialist' party, but that of the proletariat, who, given the perfect opportunity to subject the state to their will, had no clue of what to do. The PRACTICAL points that you speak of are what would have been provided by a communist (important adjective) party, had the proletariat been in possession of (or influenced by) an ideology expressing such practical points then there would have been a revolution.

[Hoipolloi Cassidy]

Wasnt it, in fact, the continuous infighting amongst the various left sects from the trots to the situationists to the maoists, combined with a hegemony of the PC, who all tried to impose their 'ideological centrality' which did most to undermine may '68?
Actually, not, they were the freak show. The ideology of the workplace occupations and the general strike came from a long tradition of anarcho-syndicalism and workplace anarchism that few bothered to notice. (The only person who seems to have predicted it was Herbert Luethy.)



What is (and was) in need of being put forward, are PRACTICAL points, of what to do, and above all of HOW to do. Not phrase-mongering.
See above. You'll find even today very solid traditions of anarchist organizing in France that the participants wouldn't even consciously identify as anything but "practical," so deeply are they ingrained in working-class culture.

Solidarity/Solidarité/Freundschaft

[Andropov]

To completely dismiss the gains that can be made in electoral politics is inane.
Now lets make this clear, I recognise that electoralism is just one of the many avenues that a Revolutionary Marxist should utilise, it is not the culmination of the struggle, just one that can be utilised.
Real gains for the working class can be gained using electoralism, this provides Marxists a greater credibility to the working class.
Revolutions occur when the material conditions provide fertile ground for social upheavel but until those material conditions are reached Leftists can utilise the electoral system to help fight rearguard actions against the Bourgeois system which will victimise the working class.
A Revolution will never be achieved through the Bourgeois electoral system but to dismiss electoralism on those grounds is infantile, it is but an avenue to further our goals.

[Savage]

To completely dismiss the gains that can be made in electoral politics is inane.
Now lets make this clear, I recognise that electoralism is just one of the many avenues that a Revolutionary Marxist should utilise, it is not the culmination of the struggle, just one that can be utilised.

There is no substantial ground that can be made in the Bourgeois politics as the state is diametrically opposed to the interests of the proletariat. There is nothing achievable in the name of the working class that isn’t double edged, any petty welfare reforms that can be gained serve the Bourgeoisie as they decrease class consciousness.


Real gains for the working class can be gained using electoralism, this provides Marxists a greater credibility to the working class.

Far from granting credibility to the left, such activity only strengthens the bourgeoisie, portraying the left as weak and with intentions equatable with social democrats, liberals, lesser-conservatives etc.


Revolutions occur when the material conditions provide fertile ground for social upheavel but until those material conditions are reached Leftists can utilise the electoral system to help fight rearguard actions against the Bourgeois system which will victimise the working class.

Self proclaimed leftist groups partaking in reactionary politics only damage the class struggle, leading to disillusionment. When revolutionary material conditions are reached, any sort of focus or participation in the Dictatorship of the Bourgeoisie will only strangle the movement, as it did in 68.

[Die Neue Zeit]

So how come there's no left-communist organization in France for spoiled ballot campaigns, then?

[Savage]

So how come there's no left-communist organization in France for spoiled ballot campaigns, then?

I think the ICC operates in France, I doubt that they're at all influential/prominent though.

[Enragé]

And arguably, these 'left sects' were in fact not leftist at all because their interest were separate to that of the proletariat. I wasn't talking about the ideological centrality of some bourgeois 'socialist' party, but that of the proletariat, who, given the perfect opportunity to subject the state to their will, had no clue of what to do. The PRACTICAL points that you speak of are what would have been provided by a communist (important adjective) party, had the proletariat been in possession of (or influenced by) an ideology expressing such practical points then there would have been a revolution.

Why do u need a communist party (as in, based on some ideological doctrine conjured up years before the actual events of this or that uprising) for that?
And my point is all these left sects tried to be this one communist party.

All you need is organization, by which i mostly mean communication, between those in revolt. Radicals, organised or not, should be part of this communication/organisation, and bring up 'what is to be done' and above all how it is to be done.

[Savage]

Why do u need a communist party (as in, based on some ideological doctrine conjured up years before the actual events of this or that uprising) for that?
The proletariat obviously needs to have a revolutionary class conscious in order for revolution to be successful (or even existent in the first place), increasing class consciousness doesn't have to be pioneered by a party but it does need to happen.


And my point is all these left sects tried to be this one communist party.
No they didn't. Workers control has never been on the Maoist agenda, it may once have been for Trotsky(ism) but it doesn't seem to be anymore.


All you need is organization, by which i mostly mean communication, between those in revolt. Radicals, organised or not, should be part of this communication/organisation, and bring up 'what is to be done' and above all how it is to be done.
This is the working class centrality I was talking about.

[Andropov]

There is no substantial ground that can be made in the Bourgeois politics as the state is diametrically opposed to the interests of the proletariat. There is nothing achievable in the name of the working class that isn’t double edged, any petty welfare reforms that can be gained serve the Bourgeoisie as they decrease class consciousness.
This ultra-leftism is not only infantile it is also harmfull to the working class.
The working class over the past century have fought and died for limited reforms through either the mobilisation of the working class or the utilisation of the bourgeois organs of power that help benefit the ordinary lives of working class people.
The sheer lunacy of suggesting that "petty welfare reforms" which I might add can alleviate great pressure on working class familys weakens their class consciousness is laughable.
To think that reforms such as a minimum wage, welfare reforms, shorter working hours, removal of child labour, greater gender, racial and sexual equality in the workplace, holidays, the weekends etc etc etc are detrimental to class consciousness is bizarre.
If indeed such "petty welfare reforms" did dull the working class consciousness then you would have instant revolutions in places like India and South East Asia since they do indeed lack such "petty welfare reforms".
These "petty welfare reforms" whether achieved by the working class through industrial unions or through the organs of parliamentary power not only alleviate their hardship to an extent but they also help embue the working class with a revolutionary zeal and confidence to tackle the status quo.
From my perspective fighting for every scrap off the bourgeois table help radicalise the working class until the material conditions are fertile for Revolution.

Far from granting credibility to the left, such activity only strengthens the bourgeoisie, portraying the left as weak and with intentions equatable with social democrats, liberals, lesser-conservatives etc.
Not at all.
The left can be the rock that Bourgeois breaks upon in the chambers of power.
The left can provide a real alternative to bourgeois rehtorric in the chambers of power.
The left can utilise the inherent contradicitons within capitalism to defeat the bourgeois arguements in parliament.
This does not strenghten the bourgeois hand, it achieves the opposite.
The lefts intentions can only be portrayed as equatable to social democrats, liberals and lesser conservatives if they are incapable of coherently portraying their policys, indeed it is far easier to equate left wing policys with the likes of social democrats, liberals and lesser conservatives when leftists refuse to use the free publicity they can garner in bourgeois parliaments, such assetions are never challenged when leftists such as yourself refuse to manipulate them to your advantage.

Self proclaimed leftist groups partaking in reactionary politics only damage the class struggle, leading to disillusionment.
Wrong again.
Left wing groups that par-take in bourgeois parliaments provide a genuine alternative to the bourgeois and confront them on their very ground.
Such genuine defiance for the working class if anything inspires working class people to stand up to the bourgeois on their ground, within the means of production.
There is no field that the bourgeois should not be attacked on, there should be no free ride for the bourgeois and this defeatist perspective is exactly that, defeatist and clearly more dissilusioning than a genuine leftist movement that is willing to step inside the lions den and slay the borugeois's own inherent contradictions.

When revolutionary material conditions are reached, any sort of focus or participation in the Dictatorship of the Bourgeoisie will only strangle the movement, as it did in 68.
Not at all, absolutely ridiculous assertion.
Revolutions are not defeated through genuine leftists attacking the bourgeois in their chambers of power.
As I have stated before attacking the bourgeois in the chambers of power are but an assistance to the mobilisation of the working class, it is not the culmination of the struggle it is but another weapon against the bourgeois.
To neglect it is to play in the bourgeois hands and to neglect the partial gains you can achieve to alieviate some of the misery for the working class is not to be ridiculed.

[Savage]

This ultra-leftism is not only infantile it is also harmfull to the working class.
lol, that's a very tired phrase, conjure a new one.


The working class over the past century have fought and died for limited reforms through either the mobilisation of the working class or the utilisation of the bourgeois organs of power that help benefit the ordinary lives of working class people.
The sheer lunacy of suggesting that "petty welfare reforms" which I might add can alleviate great pressure on working class familys weakens their class consciousness is laughable.
To think that reforms such as a minimum wage, welfare reforms, shorter working hours, removal of child labour, greater gender, racial and sexual equality in the workplace, holidays, the weekends etc etc etc are detrimental to class consciousness is bizarre.You self identify as a Leninist so I would assume that your aware of your own theory, but no, you're not. Allowing such concessions is a tactic of the Imperialist world's Bourgeoisie, specifically in order to decrease class conciousness. Such petty rights are never granted to the colonial world through parliamentary or electoral gains for obvious reasons.


If indeed such "petty welfare reforms" did dull the working class consciousness then you would have instant revolutions in places like India and South East Asia since they do indeed lack such "petty welfare reforms"That's some great logic bro, I didn't realise that working class spontaneity without any external assistance was advocated by Lenin.


These "petty welfare reforms" whether achieved by the working class through industrial unions or through the organs of parliamentary power not only alleviate their hardship to an extent but they also help embue the working class with a revolutionary zeal and confidence to tackle the status quo.
From my perspective fighting for every scrap off the bourgeois table help radicalise the working class until the material conditions are fertile for Revolution.This has been refuted by the wonders of our history. If petty welfare reforms did indeed raise class concsiousness then Imperialist countries such as America and Australia would have the most revolutionary proletariat in the world. Taking part in Bourgeois politics does not lead to radicalization.


Not at all.
The left can be the rock that Bourgeois breaks upon in the chambers of power.
The left can provide a real alternative to bourgeois rehtorric in the chambers of power.
The left can utilise the inherent contradicitons within capitalism to defeat the bourgeois arguements in parliament.
This does not strenghten the bourgeois hand, it achieves the opposite.
Any leftist political party that has achieved any sort of parliamentary gains had been subjugated to the Bourgeois system and has completely degenerated from its political form, the British, Australian and NZ labour parties, the CPUSA and all of the Bolivarian parties for example.


The lefts intentions can only be portrayed as equatable to social democrats, liberals and lesser conservatives if they are incapable of coherently portraying their policys, indeed it is far easier to equate left wing policys with the likes of social democrats, liberals and lesser conservatives when leftists refuse to use the free publicity they can garner in bourgeois parliaments, such assetions are never challenged when leftists such as yourself refuse to manipulate them to your advantage.So now your saying that as the possible outcomes for the left in the parliament are in fact greater than the possible outcomes of a social democratic agenda, the parliament can in fact be a revolutionary organ...:confused:. It is obvious that the only possible gains that can be made are social democratic at the very best, this is why electoralism damages the left.


Wrong again.
Left wing groups that par-take in bourgeois parliaments provide a genuine alternative to the bourgeois and confront them on their very ground.
Such genuine defiance for the working class if anything inspires working class people to stand up to the bourgeois on their ground, within the means of production.
There is no field that the bourgeois should not be attacked on, there should be no free ride for the bourgeois and this defeatist perspective is exactly that, defeatist and clearly more dissilusioning than a genuine leftist movement that is willing to step inside the lions den and slay the borugeois's own inherent contradictions. Not at all, absolutely ridiculous assertion. Revolutions are not defeated through genuine leftists attacking the bourgeois in their chambers of power. As I have stated before attacking the bourgeois in the chambers of power are but an assistance to the mobilisation of the working class, it is not the culmination of the struggle it is but another weapon against the bourgeois. To neglect it is to play in the bourgeois hands and to neglect the partial gains you can achieve to alieviate some of the misery for the working class is not to be ridiculed.You don't seem to think that the Dictatorship of the Bourgeoisie is at all a dictatorship, because for some reason you neglect that they have monopolized all political power. Capitalism isn't some pathetic system tied together with bits of string, governed by bumbling fools, it's highly sophisticated and must be respected if it is to be dismantled. The Bourgeoisie does not leave room for any real concessions or gains to be made, just as in the Proletarian Dictatorship there will be no possible cracks for the Bourgeoisie to sneak through. Our views are obviously anti-thetical to each others, so this debate is pretty pointless.

[Die Neue Zeit]

French far right surges, as Sarkozy spurs Islam debate (http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5jzWmafeu-1tQ7Y7rD0MoK-TrSXXA?docId=CNG.af3406c143150f5cb19eebe48e541502. 5f1)


An opinion poll conducted by Harris Interactive for Le Parisien newspaper put the National Front leader Le Pen's likely support in next year's vote at 23 percent, against 21 percent for the centre-right's Sarkozy.

[...]

The National Front has always been an anti-immigration party, but under Le Pen junior it has attempted to shed its racist image and concentrate the debate on the place of Islam in French society, picking up votes as it has done so.

Dominique Strauss-Kahn - is this the man to defeat Sarkozy? (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/mar/24/new-europe-france-french-left)


She has also been stealing the left's clothes on public services, social protection, neoliberal globalisation and the "ultra-liberal ideology of financial capitalism", even invoking the names of historic French communist leaders such as Maurice Thorez to appeal to working-class voters alienated from what they see as a Tweedledum-Tweedledee political establishment.

Such a pitch is aimed at mining a deep-seated radical strain in French public opinion. For example, in a recent poll 43% said they thought free-market capitalism was "fatally flawed" and should be replaced with a different economic system, more than in any other country surveyed – and six out of 10 said this month they would like to see a "revolt" over social and economic problems. It's that kind of sentiment that has been repeatedly mobilised by the left on the streets, most recently in last autumn's wave of strikes and mass protests against Sarkozy's pension reforms. It also fuelled the successful 2005 No referendum campaign against the market-oriented European constitution, which drew heavily on the opposition of the left – though not the socialist leadership.

But turning that into electoral success, or radical reform when the left has been in office, has been another matter. As Annick Coupé of the leftist Solidaires trade unions puts it: "There is a very strong feeling of injustice, but people don't see a clear alternative."

[...]

The more radical wing of the French left – which together with the Greens potentially commands more than 20% of the vote and could exert a powerful pressure on the Socialists to give voice to the scale of French social discontent — is beset by its own weaknesses. The shrunken Communist party, which still has thousands of elected representatives, is part of a Left Front with the outspoken former Socialist senator Jean-Luc Mélenchon that polled 9% last Sunday. But the New Anti-Capitalist party (NPA), formed two years ago by a charismatic postman, Olivier Besancenot, whose poll ratings at one time outstripped those of the Socialist leaders, has since haemorrhaged members and support. Partly it has been damaged by its refusal to support Socialists in the crucial second runoff round of the French voting system.

But the party has also been racked by divisions over secularism and Islam.

Methinks Jean-Luc Melenchon should ratchet up his rhetorical skills to the level of Ferdinand Lassalle, Hugo Chavez, and his own personal friend Oskar Lafontaine.

[Lacrimi de Chiciură]

This has been refuted by the wonders of our history. If petty welfare reforms did indeed raise class concsiousness then Imperialist countries such as America and Australia would have the most revolutionary proletariat in the world. Taking part in Bourgeois politics does not lead to radicalization.

"Since 1936 I have fought for wage increases. My father before me fought for wage increases. Now I have a TV, a fridge, a Volkswagen. Yet my whole life has been a drag. Don't negotiate with the bosses. Abolish them." -Graffiti from May 1968

France: an imperialist country with high levels of social welfare... and "the most revolutionary proletariat in the world" ?

It is by engaging in the concrete struggles for reforms that class consciousness comes into being. The working class realizes its strength and gains confidence by winning reforms. We are subjects of bourgeois politics; it's unavoidable that we take part in it. Without being subjected to it, there would be no radicalization. There would be nothing to get to the root of.

[Savage]

'We are subject to bourgeois politics; it's unavoidable that we take part in it.''-Bullshit. We are also subject to capital, perhaps we should start representing this as well and try to bring it down from above? I would have though that being a Revolutionary would mean refraining from being a Reactionary, or perhaps it's only the Communist Left that doesn't see reactionaryism as a road to revolution. I'm going to have to quote the ICT on this one,


In the bourgeoise social formation, the bourgeoisie owns the production means and so virtually it detains all the power (economic, political e military). For this reason, we say that the current political system, the so-called bourgeise democracy, at its roots is a “dictatorship of the bourgeoisie”. Elections are simply the puppet theatre of politics to legitimate the power in the hands of the bourgeoisie. They deck the system with a people mandate and, at the same time, they let it appear as “democratic”. Elections are the moment in which the bourgeoise parliamentary democracy concedes, to those exploited, the freedom to elect their own owners — to be chosen among those who have demonstrated to know how to defend the interests of the bourgeoise class at best. To participate in elections means to back this democratic mystification and to help the bourgeoisie in its dictatorship: exactly the one they call “democracy”. Against the fraud of the bourgeoise parliament, the abstentionism on class positions has to be relaunched; not certainly to legitimate apathy and apolitical individualism, but to engage in restarting class struggle, in workplaces and in streets, and in rebuilding the revolutionary party. Parliamentary roads will never led to abolishing the exploitation of wage work, neither to acquiring any long lasting “right” (as they are incorrectly called today). Only the mounting class struggle can oblige the capital to momentarily concede some space. Only the proletarian revolution can create the conditions to realize a society without exploitation.

[Hoipolloi Cassidy]

French far right surges, as Sarkozy spurs Islam debate (http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5jzWmafeu-1tQ7Y7rD0MoK-TrSXXA?docId=CNG.af3406c143150f5cb19eebe48e541502. 5f1)
.....

Methinks Jean-Luc Melenchon should ratchet up his rhetorical skills to the level of Ferdinand Lassalle, Hugo Chavez, and his own personal friend Oskar Lafontaine.

The runoff of the "cantonales" (viz., local elections) is set for tomorrow. From which we might conclude:

a) The only way so far that the FN has "toned down its racist message" has been the sacking of one of their candidates when pictures were published of him giving the Nazi salute in front of a swastika flag.

b) While the FN has made some progress and may have a number of candidates elected tomorrow, far more important is the fact that the UMP (Sarko's party) has collapsed to third place, behind the FN. Should the same occur in next year's presidential elections, the Socialist candidate would be a shoo-in facing an FN candidate in the runoffs.

c) Though abstention rates were huge in the first round of the cantonales, it's unlikely that the FN could do much better than it has (above 15%). Some analysts argue that the abstention rate was much higher among potential left and far-left voters.